| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aileron
Forum Leader
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 610
Local time: 11:17 PM
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| hillbillyatheist wrote: | | the "we need a militia" part was the reason for the second part which gives us the right to bare arms. now I could so show you some quotes by the founders on gun ownership, if you like. (these quotes are not from the constitution.) |
Nowhere in the Constitution did they write their reasons for writing laws. That would serve only to confuse the issue in a legal document. They just wrote what they wanted the law to be. If there is a qualification in their writing, it is intent and part of the law, not their rationale. Why would people familiar with law write that way? That wouldn't make any sense at all and is wholly uncharacteristic of the document itself. As far as the "we need a militia," you've omitted the "well regulated" part and also the requirement that it be necessary for the security of a free state. The regulators of the militias in the 18th century U.S. were state and local governments. The Second Amendment does not relinquish the power of state and local governments to regulate militias, and only provides people the right to keep and bear arms in this context.
| Quote: | | why doesn't the second amendment say "the right of states to have militias will not be infringed" instead of the right of the PEOPLE...? |
Because in the 18th century, the militas were often though not always comprised of every able-bodied man in a state or municipality. In the 18th century, a federal ban on personal firearms would be the same as a ban some state's practical ability to maintain a militia, "necessary for the security of a free state." Nothing in the Second Amendment prevents the state regulation of membership in a militia or its regulations then or now.
| Quote: |
sorry I didn't mean you were a leftist, I mean that argument was leftist spin, or some kind of spin anyway. |
Nope. Like it or not, it's up to the state and municipality where you live to decide if you can own a gun and what you need to do to get and keep one. The Supreme Court ruled on this a loooong time ago, so it's hardly modern-day spin. Personally, I like leaving the matter to the state and local governments. New Jersey is not like Alaska and Philadelphia is not like Billings. I appreciate your need to own firearms due to your remoteness from law enforcement, but is this really a problem for people who live in Chicago or Los Angeles? It should be natural that Chicago and Los Angeles have tighter restrictions than where you live.
| Quote: |
I think arguments that the second amendment is stupid and/or outdated make much more sense then denying what I am reading on the paper.
the right of the PEOPLE.... |
I'm not denying what you're reading on paper (cough parchment); just suggesting that most gun enthusiasts haven't really studied the nuances of 18th century law, the evolution of the militia in this country, or the early Supreme Court decisions and opinions on the matter. I think the Amendment is neither stupid nor outdated.
| Quote: | | that said I can agree that people should be given lessons and that background checks to keep insane and criminal types from getting guns is not a bad idea. |
I think you'd agree that the men commonly called founding fathers were smart and reasonable men. Would they too not have found these restrictions and perhaps some others reasonable? Perhaps that's why they added the well-regulated qualification and left the implementation to the state and local militias? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
hillbillyatheist
Administrator
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 15986
Local time: 11:17 PM
Location: Denver Colorado.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aileron wrote: | | hillbillyatheist wrote: | | the "we need a militia" part was the reason for the second part which gives us the right to bare arms. now I could so show you some quotes by the founders on gun ownership, if you like. (these quotes are not from the constitution.) |
Nowhere in the Constitution did they write their reasons for writing laws. That would serve only to confuse the issue in a legal document. They just wrote what they wanted the law to be. If there is a qualification in their writing, it is intent and part of the law, not their rationale. Why would people familiar with law write that way? That wouldn't make any sense at all and is wholly uncharacteristic of the document itself. As far as the "we need a militia," you've omitted the "well regulated" part and also the requirement that it be necessary for the security of a free state. The regulators of the militias in the 18th century U.S. were state and local governments. The Second Amendment does not relinquish the power of state and local governments to regulate militias, and only provides people the right to keep and bear arms in this context. |
lets see what the founders themselves had to say.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=53
and I may as well give this link as well.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQ/?s=17
hell, lets just give the whole NRA FAQ, should dispel a few myths to folks who have the time to read all of it. (like the misconception that the NRA wants even felons to own guns)
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQ/?s=1
| Quote: | | Quote: | | why doesn't the second amendment say "the right of states to have militias will not be infringed" instead of the right of the PEOPLE...? |
Because in the 18th century, the militas were often though not always comprised of every able-bodied man in a state or municipality. In the 18th century, a federal ban on personal firearms would be the same as a ban some state's practical ability to maintain a militia, "necessary for the security of a free state." Nothing in the Second Amendment prevents the state regulation of membership in a militia or its regulations then or now. |
so you're saying the amendment is outdated? this is a reasonable position, though I would disagree.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | sorry I didn't mean you were a leftist, I mean that argument was leftist spin, or some kind of spin anyway. |
Nope. Like it or not, it's up to the state and municipality where you live to decide if you can own a gun and what you need to do to get and keep one. The Supreme Court ruled on this a loooong time ago, so it's hardly modern-day spin. Personally, I like leaving the matter to the state and local governments. New Jersey is not like Alaska and Philadelphia is not like Billings. I appreciate your need to own firearms due to your remoteness from law enforcement, but is this really a problem for people who live in Chicago or Los Angeles? It should be natural that Chicago and Los Angeles have tighter restrictions than where you live. |
there was a case recently where san fransico tried to ban all guns, and it got struck down by the courts, IIRC. but you're right local and state governments do have discrepancy on this matter.
personally i think law abiding citizens in chicago should not be banned from getting guns. the real problem with gun violence is things like gangs and such. we should be focusing on fixing these social problems. trying to ban guns in chicago is like trying to put a band-aid on a huge gash.
guns don't cause violence as evidenced by the fact that there is very little crime where i live and guns are everywhere.
| Quote: | | Quote: | I think arguments that the second amendment is stupid and/or outdated make much more sense then denying what I am reading on the paper.
the right of the PEOPLE.... |
I'm not denying what you're reading on paper (cough parchment); just suggesting that most gun enthusiasts haven't really studied the nuances of 18th century law, the evolution of the militia in this country, or the early Supreme Court decisions and opinions on the matter. I think the Amendment is neither stupid nor outdated. |
I think it serves a great purpose of keeping the gun grabbers at bay. 
| Quote: | | Quote: | | that said I can agree that people should be given lessons and that background checks to keep insane and criminal types from getting guns is not a bad idea. |
I think you'd agree that the men commonly called founding fathers were smart and reasonable men. Would they too not have found these restrictions and perhaps some others reasonable? Perhaps that's why they added the well-regulated qualification and left the implementation to the state and local militias? |
I don't know if they would have minded or not.
I know i don't mind reasonable restrictions.
as i say though the real problem is not guns, but other issues, gangs, poverty, poor education, etc.
fix the root of the problem, I say, and don't worry about the guns. as i often say, if guns cause crime, then mine must be broken, because i have a clean record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aileron
Forum Leader
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 610
Local time: 11:17 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | lets see what the founders themselves had to say. |
A lot of them wrote about a much stronger or much weaker version of separation of church and state too, but those versions didn't get signed into law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hillbillyatheist
Administrator
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 15986
Local time: 11:17 PM
Location: Denver Colorado.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
my take is that the first amendment gives us separation of church and state and total freedom of speech. this is in-spite of right wingers saying "but the founders didn't mean for cuss words to be on TV"
similarly I read the second amendment as giving us the right to bare arms., despite the lefts screaming that the founders only meant for soldiers to have guns.
however i agree that common sense should play a role.
this is because if we take a hard line stance with either amendment we wind up having to say that slander should be legal and people have the right to own anthrax bombs.
this whole discussion started with someone (I think it was you) saying that the second amendment only allows the national guard to have weapons. on this we disagree.
on the issue of reasonable gun control, you can rest assured we do not disagree. (though we may disagree on what is "reasonable."
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eyedunno
The Great JuJu at the Bottom of the Sea
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 3810
Local time: 2:17 PM
Location: Cin City, OH!
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aileron wrote: | | Quote: | | lets see what the founders themselves had to say. |
A lot of them wrote about a much stronger or much weaker version of separation of church and state too, but those versions didn't get signed into law. |
I would almost buy this if it weren't for the fact that the Bill of Rights was drafted by James Madison and based on George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights.
And the fact that the United States now has the continued presence of armed forces doesn't change the intent of the bill, which was for everyone to have the ability to form a militia. You comment about areas with scarce law enforcement, on the other hand, is utterly irrelevant to the original intent of the amendment.
| hillbillyatheist wrote: | | I read the second amendment as giving us the right to bare arms. |
You leave your hillbilly interpretation out of this, son. The second amendment has nothing to do with wearing a wifebeater, and you know it. 
It also has nothing to do with gay men who have hairy arms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hillbillyatheist
Administrator
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 15986
Local time: 11:17 PM
Location: Denver Colorado.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aileron
Forum Leader
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 610
Local time: 11:17 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I would almost buy this if it weren't for the fact that the Bill of Rights was drafted by James Madison and based on George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights. |
No matter who wrote the draft, various edits and compromises were required to have it executed into law. The wording of the Virginia Bill of Rights was not used in the Constitution. If they wanted Virginia's wording, why did they sign into law different wording? Among other changes, they took out the part, "...that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty..." In any event, times had changed since 1776. The nation was no longer at war with the U.K., and faced rebellions and insurrection of its own since that time.
Also, the Virginia Bill of Rights just like the Constitution includes the qualification, "That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms..." The intent is clear that to keep and bear arms the law required regulation and training. Who was going to do the well-regulated part in the 18th century? Who was going to do the trained to arms part back then?
| Quote: | | And the fact that the United States now has the continued presence of armed forces doesn't change the intent of the bill, which was for everyone to have the ability to form a militia. |
That's not exactly right. Their intent was clearly for white men age 18-45 to enlist, train, and drill in their local militia, established by their state or municipal government and run by duly-appointed commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers. Clearly their intent was not for "everyone to have the ability to form a militia" because in large part the Second Amendment and the Militia Act of 1792 are responses to the government’s concern about private militias and the need for government regulation of them.
| Quote: | | You comment about areas with scarce law enforcement, on the other hand, is utterly irrelevant to the original intent of the amendment. |
I don't see why you think so. The primary intent of the Militia Act of 1792 and the Second Amendment was to preserve law and order where law enforcement was insufficient to do so on its own. They were in large part a response to the ineffectual government response and subsequent disorganized effort of a private militia to suppress the Shays’ Rebellion. What were the first uses of the militias after the signing of the Constitution and the Militia Act of 1792? Were they to prevent the government from oppressing its people as the gun lobbies quaintly want people to think was the intent of the militias? No, they were to suppress insurrection and lawlessness in frontier regions, such as the Whiskey Rebellion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12846
Local time: 8:17 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HBA wrote: | | but yeah I know some leftists don't want to ban all guns. I believe a compromise can be made with such people, as banning hand guns won't effect me personally, (I have a shot gun) and neither will I be effected by laws that keep insane criminals from getting guns. |
You're talking about self defense, and hand guns are the best option for self defense, yet it sounds like you're OK with them being banned.
| HBA wrote: | | yeah I don't think gun control has a chance in america either, other than some reasonable stuff like i mentioned above. I am also not against giving people training in things like safety and such. |
Ditto. I don't think a speedy background check is reasonable, as is licensing. People cutting hair have to be licensed.
| Quote: | | What bothers me more than anything is that gun enthusiasm seems to be the exclusive hobby of right-wing, racist assholes. This really isn't the case, but you'd think that they invented the hobby and no self-respecting liberal would ever want to own or use a gun. That's BS. I'm tired of going into gun forums on the internet and hearing stories about idiots who go on shooting sprees in the country killing anything that moves, or putting up targets that look like hippies and black people (they do this - Something Awful recently had a thread about this). That stuff pisses me off. I like to talk about guns and technology and history, but I am not itching to shoot the first cat I see on the road that I claim is feral. We need to take the hobby away from the right-wing asswipes and move it to the center. |
That sounds like a vocal minority to me. I've known a lot of NRA members, and other gun enthusiasts and I've never heard a story or even a second hand story that sounds even REMOTELY like what you're describing.
_________________
Namaste,
CET 
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12846
Local time: 8:17 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aileron wrote: | | Nowhere in the Constitution did they write their reasons for writing laws. |
That's what the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were for.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12846
Local time: 8:17 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eyedunno wrote: | | And the fact that the United States now has the continued presence of armed forces doesn't change the intent of the bill, which was for everyone to have the ability to form a militia. You comment about areas with scarce law enforcement, on the other hand, is utterly irrelevant to the original intent of the amendment. |
People should not fear the government, the government should fear the people.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hillbillyatheist
Administrator
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 15986
Local time: 11:17 PM
Location: Denver Colorado.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | HBA wrote: | | but yeah I know some leftists don't want to ban all guns. I believe a compromise can be made with such people, as banning hand guns won't effect me personally, (I have a shot gun) and neither will I be effected by laws that keep insane criminals from getting guns. |
You're talking about self defense, and hand guns are the best option for self defense, yet it sounds like you're OK with them being banned. |
I am not, but i am trying to reach a compromise, like a good politician. 
personally I use a shot gun for protection, except in public, where I use a stun gun, or my pepper spray. (which i may use at home as well if possible, as I prefer non lethal to lethal self defense whenever possible.
the reason for the gun at home is to hold the robber at gun point while waiting for the cops. whereas in public, I can just get away, which pepper spray would allow me to do.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | What bothers me more than anything is that gun enthusiasm seems to be the exclusive hobby of right-wing, racist assholes. This really isn't the case, but you'd think that they invented the hobby and no self-respecting liberal would ever want to own or use a gun. That's BS. I'm tired of going into gun forums on the internet and hearing stories about idiots who go on shooting sprees in the country killing anything that moves, or putting up targets that look like hippies and black people (they do this - Something Awful recently had a thread about this). That stuff pisses me off. I like to talk about guns and technology and history, but I am not itching to shoot the first cat I see on the road that I claim is feral. We need to take the hobby away from the right-wing asswipes and move it to the center. |
That sounds like a vocal minority to me. I've known a lot of NRA members, and other gun enthusiasts and I've never heard a story or even a second hand story that sounds even REMOTELY like what you're describing. |
the above post was piles not mine, but yeah the notion that the NRA is racist is UTTER bullshit, started by michael moore and his crapumentary "bowling for columbine" where he implied the NRA was a front for the kkk to keep blacks unarmed, which is a total and complete lie. he should be sued for slander. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12846
Local time: 8:17 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hillbillyatheist wrote: | | CET wrote: | | HBA wrote: | | but yeah I know some leftists don't want to ban all guns. I believe a compromise can be made with such people, as banning hand guns won't effect me personally, (I have a shot gun) and neither will I be effected by laws that keep insane criminals from getting guns. |
You're talking about self defense, and hand guns are the best option for self defense, yet it sounds like you're OK with them being banned. |
I am not, but i am trying to reach a compromise, like a good politician.
personally I use a shot gun for protection, except in public, where I use a stun gun, or my pepper spray. (which i may use at home as well if possible, as I prefer non lethal to lethal self defense whenever possible.
the reason for the gun at home is to hold the robber at gun point while waiting for the cops. whereas in public, I can just get away, which pepper spray would allow me to do. |
I'm trying to convince my GF to get a .38 snubnose to keep in her handbag in case she runs into some SERIOUS trouble. She's had to bust out the pepper spray a couple of times (which only make me slightly nervous for her when I'm not around), but pepper spray has to be one of those things where you have to get out of the general area or else you get jacked up too. Also, pepper spray doesn't have stopping power. The guy can still keep comin and swingin. If she's in a corner, she's pretty well screwed. At least the gun would have the power to actually knock him back.
| HBA wrote: | | the above post was piles not mine, but yeah the notion that the NRA is racist is UTTER bullshit, stared by michael moore and his crapumentary "bowling for columbine" where he implied the NRA was a front for the kkk to keep blacks unarmed, which is a total and complete lie. he should be sued for slander. |
I watched that flick (I got it off of eMule, so Moore got NONE of my money), and it was pretty bad. The thesis was interesting, the idea that America is a country that has a lot of fear in it, which leads to a lot of not so cool things. The rest of it was completely disjointed and misleading. It was pretty bad as far as documentaries go. The least he could have done was to stay on his thesis for more then the first 30 minutes. After that, it was an all around liberal grab-bag of issues being randomly thrown around.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pile
Webmaster of BSAlert.com
Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 858
Local time: 10:17 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hillbillyatheist wrote: | it is with some. just look at the UK, japan, and other places like that. it's all but illegal to own guns, and it is most certainly illegal to use them to defend yourself. hell even pepper spray is illegal over there! it's like those folks don't like the idea of people being able to protect themselves or something.
|
And UK and Japan are *exponentially* safer places as a result, with much less murder.
The fact is, you can't take guns away from a society after they've had them for several hundred years. It's a lot different in the U.S. and it's hard to compare the US to the UK in that respect.
Then there are places like Switzerland, where every citizen is issued a gun. It is a citizen militia, but otherwise you can't go around with guns.
| hillbillyatheist wrote: |
but yeah I know some leftists don't want to ban all guns. I believe a compromise can be made with such people, as banning hand guns won't effect me personally, (I have a shot gun) and neither will I be effected by laws that keep insane criminals from getting guns.
|
It's bullshit, this propaganda that there is ANY significant lobby to ban all guns. The NRA likes to troll up these extremist fringe as if they represent any significant force. They don't, any more than Fred Phelps represents Christians. But they get a disproportionate amount of publicity.
| hillbillyatheist wrote: |
the idea that the NRA is racist is just plain bullshit. now if you think their position on guns is too extreme, that is debatable but the idea that they're racist assholes is just plain utter bullshit.
|
I think that a driving force of the hard core NRA membership is racist. That's my contention. Michael Moore captured a sense of it when he interviewed Charlton Heston and he let some of his racist thoughts slip on camera. Most of my right-wing-pro-gun friends are rabidly racist too, but they don't advertise it around strangers. Growing up in the South, it's a way of life down here. Guns and racism go hand-in-hand. If you don't believe me, go to a gun show... every gun show has at least one or two tables chock full of Nazi memoribillia.
I'm sorry HBA, but if you don't see this, maybe you should change your name, because no self-respecting Hillbilly would disagree. That's part of the heritage that people don't say out loud, but it's there. Maybe it's more hidden up north. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pile
Webmaster of BSAlert.com
Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 858
Local time: 10:17 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't consider the NRA a legitimate source of information on this issue. The NRA will twist reality to suit their agenda. If you are going to cite references, don't use the NRA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iliketofrolic666
laissez faire, laissez aller, laissez passer
Joined: 13 May 2006
Posts: 266
Local time: 11:17 PM
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that there are some radical people on both sides of the gun debate, without the NRA the pro-guns wouldn't have enough crazies to counter-balance the anti-gun crazies. I think that if the pro-gun people didn't do this fear mongering, then the anti-gun people would build up support to the point where they would outlaw guns, it wouldn't be the first time our government has made a stupid law that went against what people wanted (Prohibition anyone?).
_________________
"And part of what we have to do and we haven't done right is take on that responsibility of nation-building." -Giuliani :- ( |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
